Re: SUMMARY: Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal
> > - Don't ship .la files in the -dev package; don't depend on any other -dev
> > packages except those whose headers you need. This gives optimal results
> > for shared linking by pruning all unnecessary build-dependencies and
> > dependencies; but it also screws over anyone trying to do static linking,
> > who now has to go *recursively* hunt down the package name for each of the
> > library dependencies, based only on the names of the symbols exported.
> > (So why would anyone ship the static libs at this point...?)
> If we want to support static linking then let's break it off into it's
> own '-static' package with appropriate dependencies. Personally I don't
> think it's really worth it and we should just go ahead and drop the
> static libraries too. It'd certainly make the -dev packages alot
> smaller. Maybe then we could just put -dbg stuff in the -dev packages.
That's the portion which was missing in your argument,
resulting in your failure to convey information.
You need to state 'drop static lib linking support from -dev package'
rather than 'libtool is broken'.
libtool isn't really broken; it's just that static libs and shared libs
> > - Kill the .la files and .a files. Drop support for static linking. Not
> > something that should be done lightly and without prior project-wide
> > discussion.
> We've had that discussion before. Last I recall there wasn't really a
> huge fight to keep them.
Current situation is that we have removed the mandate from
policy to require static libs, since some libs really don't work
with static linking.
However, it is still in policy 8.3. that if it exists, it will be
in -dev package.
Having an extra -static package is rather drastic change,
and I personally still do like the ability of being able to
do static linking.
Junichi Uekawa, Debian Developer http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/
183A 70FC 4732 1B87 57A5 CE82 D837 7D4E E81E 55C1